Utah Legislation addresses brandishing of guns

This is a discussion on Utah Legislation addresses brandishing of guns within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Legislation addresses brandishing of guns | Deseret News
I copied the article below. I find it ironic that the anti-gun guy's last name is Gunn. ...

Utah Legislation addresses brandishing of guns

I copied the article below. I find it ironic that the anti-gun guy's last name is Gunn. I hope this legislation passes.

What are your thoughts on this?

By Josh Smith

Deseret News
Published: Tuesday, Jan. 19, 2010 12:14 a.m. MST

SALT LAKE CITY — More guns may be making appearances in confrontations across Utah, adding intensity, for better or worse.

Newly proposed legislation would be a green light for concealed-gun owners to openly carry firearms and, if threatened, draw or exhibit their weapons and verbally threaten deadly force.

Depending on whom you ask, that gun-induced intensity could defuse confrontations more quickly, or it could lead to more deadly violence.

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, R-Orem, said HB78 clarifies existing law with "affirmative language" that would provide gun owners another option to defend themselves or others around them.

"This allows a gun owner to not have to go all the way and actually fire his gun," Sandstrom said. "This would still be the very last resort, however. It doesn't give you the right to just flash a gun at anyone who makes you mad."

The proposal officially allows Utahns to openly carry firearms and inform others that they are carrying a gun, not currently illegal, but not codified in law. The bill only applies to individuals who have concealed weapons permits, and "brandishing" a gun for anything less than self-defense will still be illegal.

Utah Shooting Sports Council Chairman Clark Aposhian said he worked to develop the new legislative language and dismissed concerns about increased gun violence.

"This really doesn't alter what's allowed under current law," he said. "Rather, it sanctions a less-than-deadly alternative to actually shooting a gun. No one has ever died from just having a gun pointed at them."

Gun-control advocate Steven Gunn, a board member at the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah, called the new language "ridiculous."

Guns act as an "accelerant" in confrontations, he said.

"Firearms can cause violence when violence would not have occurred," Gunn said. "We need to ask ourselves if human life is important to us."

As with another proposed bill, which would exempt Utah-made firearms from federal laws, Sandstrom said his bill is based on Montana gun laws.

Last year, Sandstrom sponsored legislation that made it legal to conceal loaded weapons in a vehicle without a permit. That bill passed with overwhelming support in the Legislature, although polls later indicated public opposition to the new law.

Sandstrom said he thinks residents misunderstood that legislation, and he said he has only ever heard support for his pro-gun stance.

The two-term representative, a member of the National Rifle Association, said he often carries a concealed weapon and considers himself a "Second Amendment purist," and he reiterated the gun-rights mantra that if "guns rights are restricted, only lawbreakers will have guns."

Gunn said he has testified on Capitol Hill before but said it is too early to know if he will specifically speak against this legislation.

This really is not the worst idea I have ever heard, and there are, on the surface at least, some reasonable quotes in there.

The problem I have with this is the idea of drawing a weapon with no intent to use it. If that thing comes out, the victim had better be prepared to utilize it to it's fullest. From what I have been told, an experienced BG knows the difference, and will take a gun away from a victim who is not willing to actually pull the trigger. The gun comes out to rectify a lead deficiency in someone posing an immediate threat, not when someone needs a good talking to.

It would get my vote though. Normal circumstances tend to show that when a victim pulls out a firearm, the BG's go running.

Beat me to it, Plop. I saw this on KSL this morning. I think this is a great idea. It's right in line with the thought that the action of presenting a weapon to a threat can cause said threat to tuck tail and run.

I would probably vote for the bill if I lived there, but I would dispute this comment: "No one has ever died from just having a gun pointed at them."

I think this is the wrong attutude to have, and just plain wrong: heart attacks, AD, etc...

Thinking that you can just pull out the gun and the problem will go away can get you in a lot of trouble. I'm all for warning and presenting if time and distance allow for it without giving up too much advantage, but if you pull it, you better be ready to shoot it.

This really is not the worst idea I have ever heard, and there are, on the surface at least, some reasonable quotes in there.

The problem I have with this is the idea of drawing a weapon with no intent to use it. If that thing comes out, the victim had better be prepared to utilize it to it's fullest. From what I have been told, an experienced BG knows the difference, and will take a gun away from a victim who is not willing to actually pull the trigger. The gun comes out to rectify a lead deficiency in someone posing an immediate threat, not when someone needs a good talking to.

It would get my vote though. Normal circumstances tend to show that when a victim pulls out a firearm, the BG's go running.

The problem I have with this is the idea of drawing a weapon with no intent to use it. If that thing comes out, the victim had better be prepared to utilize it to it's fullest. From what I have been told, an experienced BG knows the difference, and will take a gun away from a victim who is not willing to actually pull the trigger. The gun comes out to rectify a lead deficiency in someone posing an immediate threat, not when someone needs a good talking to.

I think the idea is to show the BG it is time to move on and find another victim (who might also be armed).

As far as being "willing" to pull the trigger. I hope all of us that carry have thought through this and actually are willing to pull the trigger if needed. That certainly doesn't mean we want to or are not first going to find another way out of the situation (such as letting the BG know you are armed).

Gun-control advocate Steven Gunn, a board member at the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah, called the new language "ridiculous."

Guns act as an "accelerant" in confrontations, he said.

"Firearms can cause violence when violence would not have occurred," Gunn said. "We need to ask ourselves if human life is important to us."

Mr. Gunn, my diagnosis is that you are suffering from, what we in the business refer to, hoplophobia. I am prescribing two days of submersion in pro-gun culture; you must engage in shooting safety and defensive classes. Both with lecture time and range activities. I will expect a marked improvement the next time we visit...

"A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source

"This allows a gun owner to not have to go all the way and actually fire his gun," Sandstrom said.

"This would still be the very last resort, however. It doesn't give you the right to just flash a gun at anyone who makes you mad."

I think it's a good thing.

Of course, there will be a percentage of people who will take it and run with it, as license to be snotty, to push things too far and know they still have an "ace in the hole," and so on. But CHL is like that. Very, very few do this. So, on the whole, I think it's a good idea.

It's like "Castle" provisions. It covers legitimate desire to avoid deadly force in justifiable situations, nothing more. That's as it should be, IMO. It's one step more toward presumption of innocence as opposed to presumption of guilt, merely because a person in a dire situation begins to leverage the fact that he/she is armed by stating so, showing it, drawing it, all in the hopes of avoiding actually firing it. That it can help avoid deadly shootings is a good thing and, I think, it's the point of the legislation.

This new bill clarifies existing language. It is meant to protect the gun owner. If you feel threatened with serious harm or death and merely brandish your firearm and the BG gets away without you shooting, there could still be a major battle in civil court. This bill clarifies language that is basically understood, but now it will be written in law, protecting the victim. Pulling your firearm will still only be legal if threatened with serious injury or death.

Email response to my email (not my Rep, but I CC'd every Rep in Utah):

Dear Jason,

I would like to thank you for contacting me. Your input is important to me as I strive to help make Utah a better place.

To address your concern with HB 78, I have met personally with the sponsor of this bill and thoroughly read the supporting documents. This being said, I feel that this is a good bill that will help protect the public, and I will be supporting this bill.

As your Representative, I promise to do all I can to best serve you, my constituents, and our great state of Utah. I thank you for your response and take into serious consideration the issues you have addressed.